Bava Batra 59

דא"ל לחבריה כל נכסי דבי בר סיסין מזבינא לך הואי ההיא ארעא דהוה מיקרי דבי בר סיסין אמר ליה הא לאו דבי בר סיסין היא ואיקרויי הוא דמיקריא דבי בר סיסין אתו לקמיה דרב נחמן אוקמא בידא דלוקח א"ל רבא דינא הכי המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה

said to another, 'I will sell you all the property of Bar Sisin's.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., which I acquired from Bar Sisin. ');">¹</span>

קשיא דרבא אדרבא קשיא דרב נחמן אדרב נחמן

There was a piece of land which was called Bar Sisin's, but the vendor said, 'This is not really the property of Bar Sisin though it is called Bar Sisin's.' The case was brought before R. Nahman, and he decided in favour of the purchaser. Said Raba to him: Is this a right decision? Does not the onus probandi always lie on the claimant? There is thus a contradiction between these two remarks of Raba, and also between the two rulings of R. Nahman.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because in the former case Raba decides in favour of the purchaser and R. Nahman in favour of the seller, and in the latter case Raba decides in favour of the seller and R. Nahman in favour of the purchaser. ');">²</span>

דרבא אדרבא לא קשיא התם מוכר קאי בנכסיה הכא לוקח קאי בניכסיה

Between the two remarks of Raba there is no contradiction. In the latter case the seller is in possession; in the former the purchaser is in possession.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And Raba decides in each case in favour of the party in possession. ');">³</span>

דרב נחמן אדרב נחמן נמי לא קשיא כיון דאמר ליה דבי בר סיסין ומיקריא דבי בר סיסין עליה דידיה רמיא לגלויי דלאו דבי בר סיסין היא אבל הכא לא יהא אלא דנקיט שטרא מי לא אמרינן ליה קיים שטרך וקום בניכסי:

Neither is there any contradiction between the two rulings of R. Nahman. [In the latter case,] since the seller professed to sell the property of Bar Sisin's and this land is called Bar Sisin's, it is for him to prove that it is not Bar Sisin's, but here let the occupier [in pleading presumptive right] be but treated as if he produced a document of sale,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The three years' occupation taking the place of a title-deed. ');">⁴</span>

ההוא דאמר ליה לחבריה מאי בעית בהאי ביתא א"ל מינך זבנתיה ואכלתיה שני חזקה אמר ליה בשוקי בראי הואי אמר ליה והא אית לי סהדי דכל שתא הוה אתית תלתין יומי א"ל תלתין יומי בשוקאי הוה טרידנא אמר רבא עביד איניש דכל תלתין יומי טריד בשוקא

in which case should we not say to him: 'Prove your document to be valid and you can remain in ownership of the property'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So here we can say to him, 'Prove that you have had unchallenged occupation'. Thus in both cases R. Nahman requires the party in possession to prove his right. ');">⁵</span>

ההוא דאמר ליה לחבריה מאי בעית בהאי ארעא אמר ליה מפלניא זבינתה דאמר לי דזבנה מינך אמר ליה את לאו קא מודית

A certain man said to another, 'What right have you in this house?' He replied, 'I bought it from you and have had the use of it for the period of <i>hazakah</i>.' Said the other, 'I was abroad<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in outside markets;' i.e., in places not on any caravan route. ');">⁶</span> all the time [and therefore did not know or protest].' 'But,' said the first, 'I have witnesses to prove that you used to come here for thirty days every year.' 'Those thirty days,' he replied, 'I was occupied with my business.' [On hearing of the case] Raba said: It is quite possible for a man to be fully occupied with his business for thirty days [and not to know that another has occupied his house]. A certain man said to another, 'What right have you on this land?' He replied, 'I bought it from so-and-so who told me that he had bought it from you.' Said the first, 'You admit then